On AZBlogX today, a posting “Memorial mansex”, about a Lucas studio gay porn sale for Memorial Day 2018, with an ad offer (cropped below to avoid penises) showing three naked men with narrowed eyes, plus a shot of the onset of fellatio (with two men knee-deep in a pool of water, for added interest), to show you the sort of thing you can get from the Lucas sale offer:
(#1)
To come: on porn for the holidays; then on narrowed eyes and drooping eyelids and how these might be interpreted.
… the male model, in body-display, rather than fashion-display, mode — so only a little about language. On the other hand, this posting is, in word and image, at least technically SFW (though homo-steamy).
It begins with a Facebook comment from Ken Rudolph about image #1 in my “Hitchhiking” posting of yesterday:
(#1)
Ken asked:
Who is #1? And where did that still come from…it looks more like a regular movie than a porn.
Not any kind of movie, but a posed still done by a professional photographer (as are, I think, #2-7 in my hitchhiking posting, and the three photos in the accompanying AZBlogX posting). Meanwhile, a Google Images search led me to Saucier.
About the display of the male body, but also about gesture and facial expression.
Today, from the Daily Jocks people, an ad for products from the Pump! firm, specifically for a line of socks for working out, but with links to the company’s larger catalogue, which tends to feature underwear models “projecting steamy desirability” (as I put it in my Rafael Nadal posting) — in fact projecting a male-hustler persona while teasingly flaunting the pleasures of their bodies.
There’s shirt-lifting (focused on the abs), pants-lowering in the front (pointing towards the crotch), pants-lowering in the back (pointing towards the butt-crack), and armpit displays. The models stare intently into the viewers’ eyes, narrowing their own eyes (signalling arousal combined with dominance, rather than anger), and sometimes opening their lips slightly (another sign of arousal). They are scruffily hypermasculine, projecting not fitness and athleticism, but intense, even urgent, sexuality.
In the May 18th New Yorker, this lovely Charlie Hankin cartoon:
(#1)
On the caption: this is a show-business meme: We don’t want X; we want an X type. (We don’t want Whoopi Goldberg; we want a Whoopi Goldberg type.) But then there’s the image of a ring-tailed lemur, looking non-plussed — but this is exactly the way the creatures look in the wild:
(#2)
